« Is It All That Rosy for Media Investments? | Main | UPDATE: RESTRICTIONS ON MEDIA INVESTMENT »
March 4, 2005
Chinese Management -- Beyond Garbage In, Garbage Out
Chinese educators place a premium on rote learning. Those of a more enlightened consciousness believed that the meaning of what one had memorized as a youth would become apparent at a time of greater maturity.
I witnessed the wondrous benefit of this instructional concept at a luncheon in Taipei many years ago. As we discussed how one went about forging business relationships, a Taiwanese friend suddenly banged on the table, shocking us.
He had evidently experienced a revelation of understanding – of a phrase in The Analects by Confucius that his parents had forced him to memorize as a youth 30 years before. [The Analects in English and in Chinese.] “So that’s what it means!” he said. The value of rote learning is apparent. “Life experience,” as an American might call it, brings the idea held within memory, as a seed awaiting the spring, to life.
However, the literalists are far more numerous, especially in modern mainland China. They demand strict obedience to the letter of the teaching – whatever that teaching may be. The ability to reason and come to conclusions on one's own was and is seen as a danger to the powerful. A dear friend, who is also a brilliant intellectual, told me in 1983 he thought Mao Zedong a great man because he controlled the masses with thought. Shocking as that was to a young American intellectual, as I then was, it is nonetheless instructive of a typically Chinese principle: uniformity of thinking ensures control.
What does all this have to do with business in general and investment in particular?
Having spent my life among Chinese – and having trained many – I have found that the most difficult, and yet most pressingly important, task in a Chinese enterprise is teaching employees to think for themselves. Aside from the occasional micro-manager – whom most westerners would consider as lacking vital self-confidence -- the American manager expects his American reports to have the ability to resolve problems on their own with a minimum of supervision.
Chinese managers represent the opposite pole entirely, surely by education and often out of necessity. That is, complete control of all details at all times. Employees aren't supposed to think for themselves because the manager is to do that for them. But how can one create managers out of employees who never have to think for themselves?
That said, the role of the manager in a Chinese enterprise is in flux. The authoritarian style, while remaining the style of choice, shows fine cracks running up and down its facade.
What are some of those changes and why have they come about? How does the manager augment his staff's individual level of capability and self-sufficiency while retaining strong overall direction of his team? What does an investor look for in the management staff of his target, if he hopes to gauge the potential for success of the business? We will address this topic is greater detail over the next few weeks.
UPDATE: Read the next installment of this post at "Where Would You Like the Comma Placed, Sir?"
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.asiabizblog.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-t.cgi/7
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Chinese Management -- Beyond Garbage In, Garbage Out:
» Chinese Communists and Confucianism from METANOIAC! a weblog from China
Unfortunately, blogging about Confucianism usually doesn't bring much response from readers, but I can't resist writing on this topic because it gets to the core of Chinese civilization. I welcome any and all comments. Recently there have been rumors t... [Read More]
Tracked on March 16, 2005 10:24 AM
Comments
Hi Richard,
I enjoyed your discussion of Confucianism. I have the feeling that "Confucianism"--understood strictly as a means of organizing society--is not as dead as the Communist government would have us believe. If you made a metaphor and said that the Communists were like vampires, Confucianism might be represented as the neck of some fine young lady. Indeed they thrive on Confucianism and de-nature it at the same time.
Confucianism, in its base form, requires absolute loyalty from all. In the past, subjects had to be absolutely loyal to the emperor; when dynasties changed, officials remained loyal to the old dynasty because the system would not allow otherwise. This type of indoctrination may have started in the family, but it was reinforced much more strongly through the school system, which was (and is) another pillar of the Chinese state. Today, rather than enforcing loyalty to the emperor, the state school system enforces a more general loyalty to the State however it's currently composed.
The Confucianism of the past tried to ensure that the Emperor was loyal to his people in return by putting Confucius "beyond the pale" so to speak. In terms of statecraft, it was commonly understood that Confucius was the standard bearer to which the Emperor should humbly look in times of trouble--this is why or how Confucius was slightly deified. In my opinion, the trouble today is that the standard-bearer is not clear. Is it Marx? Is it Mao? Is it free-trade economics? More likely, it's Machiavellian schemers who may have good intentions but probably lack any firm moral compass. That's dangerous.
Sorry to get off the topic--which was business--but maybe there are some things that could apply.
Posted by: Matt Waters at March 13, 2005 12:46 AM
Post a comment
Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)
